Do you think bankers will destroy block chain tech, decentralization, bitcoin?

[RocketSingh]

1. How are you going to stop the bankers trying to dictator crypto?

By welcoming them.

2. Are you fully aware of things that are going on?

In bitcoin? Yes. In bank and scamcoins? No.

3. What measures are you taking now?

Buying more bitcoin while the price is low.

[1715111580]

1715111580

[1715111580]

1715111580

[1715111580]

1715111580

[1715111580]

1715111580

[1715111580]

1715111580

[bestluck]

The bankers are not much stronger then crypto technology, they will only follow the technology and the more development for their banking system will be to provide their own wallet and nothing more

[Carlton Banks]

to be honest i am a bit afraid, that they might just do something worse then destroying it. they could pervert the block chain and make it something it was not meant to be. and since they did not destroy it enough people are dumb enough to go with it. sure there would be still some small groups left with a proper block chain, but so small that nobody would care.

As long as there is an open market for the competing currencies, that can't happen. I feel more concerned about the infrastructure of the internet itself being neutered than Bitcoin being hijacked (although the latter is not impossible).

Too many of the original Bitcoin investors were computer literate, and there seems to be a positive correlation between computer and math literacy and the amount of BTC people invested in (I bought a fair amount). It's difficult to fool those kind of people with nonsense arguments, so it's a little difficult to get any kind of hijacking leverage out of that dynamic. Hasn't stopped them trying, though

[franky1]

look at carlton with all the propaganda.

but where is carlton when it comes to the bankers investment of $55m that went to adam back and greg maxwell..
oops i struck a nerve.. i mentioned a banker relationship with the ones trying to slow down bitcoin capacity growth..

I've always addressed this directly.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers are not a bank. And that's the investment organisation Franky is referring to. That isn't a bank.

thats like saying R3 organisation is not a bank..(because its just an organization)
PwC is just an organisation of partners.. look at the partners of Pwc, just like the partners of R3

R3 and PwC are the same thing.. banker money used to sway programmers to do certain things to get what bankers want. and programmers doing it to release a second tranche of investment by achieving what bankers want.

i look forward to seeing greg and adam get too excited about their next tranche of investment release, as their egos are too big to hide such a milestone. and then they have to start admitting what was required and needed to be achieved to get that tranche of funds

the hypocrisy is amazing when it comes to carlton trying to defend core while attacking anything not core.
carlton, hows the prep work going to REKT luke JR before he releases real capacity buffer increase version of core?

[Cryptogott]

They don't care about bitcoin. Banks have bigger problems than bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

The difference is that R3 promoted engineers who came up with a plan to turn Bitcoin into a centralised network, whereas the team that PWC funded have been working mericlessly on improving the decentralised properties of the network. To wit:

• 0.8 introduced the UTXO set
• 0.10 introduced headers first block propagation
• 0.12 introduced secp256k tx verification
• 0.13 introduced compact block propagation
• 0.13.1 will bring in SegWit

And who was responsible for all that development? The Classic/XT turncoats, or the Blockstream based devs?

[franky1]

The difference is that R3 promoted engineers who came up with a plan to turn Bitcoin into a centralised network, whereas the team that PWC funded have been working mericlessly on improving the decentralised properties of the network. To wit:

• 0.8 introduced the UTXO set
• 0.10 introduced headers first block propagation
• 0.12 introduced secp256k tx verification
• 0.13 introduced compact block propagation
• 0.13.1 will bring in SegWit

And who was responsible for all that development? The Classic/XT turncoats, or the Blockstream based devs?

pwc:
segwit, to blind old nodes
no witness mode to not even verify data because they dont ask for signatures
pruned to not have copies of historic data to help newbies start up.

in short segwit code results in LESS fully validating nodes.

have a nice day

[Vikingr]

Once the bankers know about the profit of bitcoin they will start to love bitcoin and especially when they learn to run the technology of bitcoin. They hate bitcoin because they do not know anything about the technology of bitcoin and just know that with that people will put their money only in bitcoin and not in the banks.

[Carlton Banks]

The day's not over yet.

What's stopping people from running a witness node, Franky? It's "nothing", isn't it?

[PacePay]

I think the bankers should have to create their own wallet where they will serve those customers who will like to put their money in bitcoin so that the bankers will not lose their profit with the success of bitcoin and bitcoin will also get a stronger support and people will put more and more money in bicoin as banks will give guarantee for their money.

[yayayo]

The Gavin Andresen/Mike Hearn hard fork proposals were very likely bankster moves against Bitcoin (as both have connections with either the banking or corporate establishment). They proposed to put huge unnecessary loads on the network, and dialed back the size of the extra load they proposed by several factors, several times, and still their plans were rejected.

The hard fork mechanism is important if there is a genuine disagreement on direction, or if the ethics of the repo maintainers become significantly questionable. We don't have that problem though. The problem was hard fork proposals that intend to install rogue development teams, not the current dev team.

What did we do? We argued against it, successfully, against an army of shills. They're re-mobilising right now, and it's hilarious.

I fully agree, however I think in the case of Hearn and Andresen it's also quite possible, that governments were behind it. Especially considering the fact that Andresen without hesitation visited a well-known three letter agency and met with other representatives of the status quo. Later he tried a power grab by founding the infamous Bitcoin Foundation to open the door to political influence on Bitcoin development. Either he truly was naively under the impression that "negotiating" with governments is advantageous for Bitcoin or it was just plain collaboration with the establishment because of full affiliation.

At least Hearn and Andresen showed significant signs of a narcissistic personality, a feature often encountered inside the gov officialdom and among bankers.

In my view, the guy coming closest at being a prototypical banker type Bitcoin destroyer is Roger Ver, who was also in full support of the unbearably dumb and dangerous big block scheme and is now spreading his propaganda via Bitcoin.com.

The brave and intelligent have won a battle for now, but the war is far from over...

ya.ya.yo!

[Carlton Banks]

I fully agree, however I think in the case of Hearn and Andresen it's also quite possible, that governments were behind it. Especially considering the fact that Andresen without hesitation visited a well-known three letter agency and met with other representatives of the status quo. Later he tried a power grab by founding the infamous Bitcoin Foundation to open the door to political influence on Bitcoin development. Either he truly was naively under the impression that "negotiating" with governments is advantageous for Bitcoin or it was just plain collaboration with the establishment because of full affiliation.

It's difficult to be sure about the exact details, we have circumstantial evidence only. But it's a reasonable assumption that Hearn and Andresen were not too stupid to understand that their 20 MB block proposals were reckless beyond belief, it's just not possible that they didn't know.

[Yakamoto]

I think the bankers should have to create their own wallet where they will serve those customers who will like to put their money in bitcoin so that the bankers will not lose their profit with the success of bitcoin and bitcoin will also get a stronger support and people will put more and more money in bicoin as banks will give guarantee for their money.

Maybe it would be worth it for them to go and make their own wallets, but I personally don't think that it is important at all for them to design their own wallets and customize them according to what the want to give to their customers.

Banks are not required to develop anything, and if they can use what already exists then good fo them. Additional developments and so just aren't things that are necessary all the time.

[Ai7xpressTV]

bankers don't like decentralization is because centralization = power of the few, (at the expense of the many.) Decentralization is a threat to that power. It's kind of difficult to have power over something you don't have direct control over. That's why so many wars are being faut in countries that don't yet have central banks and why Brexit was so reviled in the media.

[trickshot22]

i dont think that it is possible, bitcoin seems to be going really strong and i think that it should not go down because a few banks want that

[Teraboy]

Absolutely not.

There is a lot of talk about the banks destroying bitcoin, yet no one has even shown me a method for doing this. Until someone can show how this could be done, I don't think it will be done.

1. How are you going to stop the bankers trying to dictator crypto? - I don't have to. There is no way to do it.

2. Are you fully aware of things that are going on? - Um.  you mean in the bitcoin world? Sure, more than most I suppose.

3. What measures are you taking now? - I only use BTC online and dumped my credit cards. The banks are only powerful because you keep giving them your money. I do not do that.

Aagree with you, there is no way to fo it, we are just a civilians and there is no way for taking any act till just avoiding their service just preventing the bank with a little effort.


Bank just focussing their viewpoint in bitcoin and just harness the blockchain for threatening bitcoin

[cromex]

The blockchain is growing the more popular it get the quicker it grows, so all they have to do is just wait and gradually build there super nodes with states and a few giant companies. To what I am hearing that is not very far off.
The development of bitcoin need to find a way to scale and fast. the governments wants control, they are exploring, splitting the teams up to reduced there effectiveness.

[Viyamore]

No ,in fact many news about blockchain technology innovation of usage they keep improving blockchain to use in many sectors online.
Recently IBM and Japans biggest bank shakes on about this matter .they will ise bitcoins blockchain for their special project and they will spend more billions of dollars to research and to improve it.

[Shiroslullaby]

Yeah its interesting that all these banks are investing big money in blockchain.
Most of them are pretty quiet about what they are doing with this technology, so its hard to say if they are trying to build a technology for their own use,
or studying the technology to find the holes in it.
Either way its scary, because it would be nothing for a bank or invest a couple billion dollars and totally shift the direction of any coin, even Bitcoin.

[passwordnow]

I think bankers are not going to be able to destroy the network for blockchain because it is really strong and no one is going to destroy it. But with the decentralization of bitcoin, banks are able to make it centralized if they are going to adopt it and the government is going to allow it and it is going to happen when banks sees a threat to their industry.